T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 05- 2109 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) M ONC E RR AT M E NDOZ AB O R U N D A , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR- 0 4 - 1 7 5 6 RB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , AN DE RS ON , and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es. M oncerr atM endoza - B orunda appe al s t he fi ve- y earm andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence i m pos ed fol l ow i ng hi s gui l typl ea t o cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e more t han 100 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana a nd pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e l es s t han 50 k i l o g r a ms o f

ma r ij u a n a . E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we affirm M r. M en d o za -B o run d a’s se n tenc e. H o w ev er, be ca u se th e d istri ct co u rt ent er ed a j udgm entof convi ct i on and i m pos ed a c oncurr ents ent ence on an unchar ged count , w e vac at e thatconvi ct i on as w el l as t he conc ur r ents ent ence and- 2-

re m a n d w ith in s tru c tio n s fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt to e n te r a n a m e n d e d ju d g m e n t. I. O n J une 2, 2004, U ni t ed St at es B or derPatr ol A gent s i n Sout hern N ew M exi co s aw a w hi t e mi ni - van pul l t o the s i de of I nt er s t at e 10 w i th i t s haza r ds fl as hi ng. T he age nt s appr oache d t he vehi cl e and obs erved M r . M endoza - B orunda a n d fo u r o th e r m a le o c c u p a n ts, o n e o f w h o m w a s p lac in g a lar g e b u rla p b a g in to the mi ni - van’ s car go ar ea. A s the age nt s dr ew cl os er , thr ee of the men at t empt ed t o fl ee on foot , butw er e s ubs equent l yappr ehende d. M r . M endoza - B orunda and a n o th e r m a n w e re ta k e n in to c u s to d ya t th e v e h ic le . T he age nt s r ecove r ed tw o bundl es of m ar ij uana f r om the mi ni - van. T hey d isc o v e re d fo u r m o re b u n d les o f m a riju a n a u n d e rn e a th a n e a rb yb u sh a lo n g w ith tra c k s m a tch in g th e sh o e s w o rn b yth e th re e w o u ld -b e a b sc o n d e rs. T h e six bu nd l es contai ned a t otal of 1 12 . 4 k i l og ram s of m arij uan a. D uri ng a po st -arres t interview , M r. M en d o za -B o run d a a d m itted th at he an d o n e o f th e o ther m en w ere g o in g to b e p a id $ 2 ,0 0 0 e a c h to tr a n s p o rt th e m a riju a n a to T u c s o n , A ri z o n a . O n Sept ember3, 2004, M r . M endoza - B orunda and the fourotherm en fr om the mi ni - van w er e named i n t he s ame t hr ee- counti ndi ctm ent . M r . M endoza B o ru n d a w a s c h a rg e d in o n lytw o o f th e th re e c o u n ts. C o u n t I c h a rg e d h im w ith cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n exce s s of 100 ki l ogr ams of m a riju a n a , in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . C o u n t III c h a rg e d h im w ith p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te le ss th a n 5 0 k ilo g ra m s o f m a riju a n a , in- 3-

v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(B ). H e p lea d e d g u iltyto b o th c o u n ts w ith o u t th e b e n e fit o f a p le a a g re e m e n t. T he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch r ecomm ended a s ent ence bas ed on the U ni t ed St at es S entenci ng G uidel i nes (“U S S G ” or “G uidel i nes”). T he P S R fou nd a t otal offense leve l of tw en ty -on e a n d asse ssed M r. M en d o za -B o run d a tw o total cri m inal h ist o ry p o in ts — o n e fo r a 2 0 0 0 D W I c o n v ic tio n a n d o n e fo r a 2 0 0 3 D W I c o n v ic tio n . T hes e tw o cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s pl ace d M r . M endoza - B orunda i n cr i m i nal h ist o ryca tego ryII. O rdin aril y , a total offe n se lev el of tw en ty -on e a n d a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof I I w oul d have r es ul t ed i n a s ugges t ed G ui del i nes r ange of 41 t o 51 m onths . [I d. ¶ 52] H ow ever , beca us e C ountI i nvol ved i n exce s s of 100 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana a nd offe ns es i nvol vi ng 100 orm or e ki l ogr ams of m a riju a n a c a rr ya m a n d a to ry m in im u m fiv e -ye a r s e n te n c e , s e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) , th e P S R c o n c l u d e d th e Gu i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e wa s fi v e y e a r s . US S G § 5G 1. 1( b) ( “W her e a s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um s ent ence i s gr eat erthan the m axi m um of the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, the s t atut or i l yr equi r ed mi ni m um sen tenc e sh all b e the G u ideline sen tenc e.”). T h e P S R fu rth er c o n clud ed that M r. M en d o za -B o run d a d id n o t qu ali fyfo r “sa fe ty -va lve” reli ef fro m the m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence beca us e he ha d m or e than one c r i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt . See U SSG § 5C 1. 2 ( courts hal l i m pos e a s ent ence w i thi n gui del i nes r ange, w i thout- 4-

r egar d t o s t atut orym i ni m um s ent ence , i f, among ot herthi ngs , “the defendantdoes n o t h a v e m o re th a n 1 c ri m in a l h is to ry p o in t” ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f) ( s a m e ). M r . M e n d o z a - Bo ru n d a ’ s d e fe n s e c o u n s e l fi l e d a s e n t e n c i n g me mo r a n d u m, obj ect i ng t o the PSR ’ s concl us i on thatM r . M endoza - B orunda w as i nel i gi bl e for s a fe ty- v a l v e r e l i e f. S p e c i fi c a l l y, c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a tth e r e q u i r e m e n t s fo rs a fe t yval ve r el i ef ha d been r ender ed advi s or ybyU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 (20 0 5 ), an d that the d istri ct co u rtco u ld (an d sh o u ld) d isr eg ard o n e o f M r. M endoza - B orunda’ s t w o cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s and s ent ence hi m bel ow the m andat orym i ni m um fi ve- y ears ent ence . I n r es pons e, the governm entar gued that the d i stri ctcou rtl acked the au tho ri tyt o im po se l ess than fi ve-y ears ’ im p riso n m e n t. A ts ent enci ng, defe ns e couns el r ei t er at ed hi s ar gum entthatB ookerhad r ender ed the r equi r ement s fors afe ty - val ve r el i ef a dvi s or y . B efor e doi ng s o, h o w ev er, he raised the p o ssibil ity , fo r th e fir st t im e, th at M r. M en d o za -B o run d a’s 2003 D W I convi ct i on m ig h t be cons t i tut i onal l yi nfi r m beca us e he w as deni ed the ri g h t t o an att o rne y . D efen se c o u n sel d id n o t i n tr o d u ce an yev iden ce in su p p o rt of thi s bel at ed ar gum ent . I ns t ead, he mer el ynot ed thatthe PSR i ndi cat ed that Mr . Me n d o z a - B o ru n d a h a d “ w a i v e d a t t o rn e yr e p r e s e n t a t i o n ” i n th e 2 0 0 3 D WI pr ocee di ngs , but“ther e w as no pr oof” i n di s coverythatthe w ai verw as cons t i tut i onal . R ec. vol . I V , at5. T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed thes e cont ent i ons . T he courtfi r s texpl ai ned that- 5-

a pr es um pt i on of r egul ar i tyatt ache s t o pr i orconvi ct i ons and thatM r . M endoza B orunda bor e the bur den of pr ovi ng hi s 2003 D W I convi ct i on w as u n c o n stitu tio n a l. T h e d istric t co u rt th e n sta ted th a t itlac k e d th e a u th o rityto i gnor e one of

M r . M endoza - B orunda’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s i n or dert o r ender h im eli g ible fo r safety -va lve re li ef. A s a re su lt , the c o u rtad o p ted th e P S R ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs and G ui del i ne ca l cul at i ons , and s ent ence d M r . M endoza - B orunda t o the st atutor i l ym and at ed five y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent fol l ow ed b yfou r y ears ’ s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta l s o o r d e r e d M r . M e n d o z a - B o ru n d a t o p a y a s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t o f

o n e h u n d re d d o lla rs fo r e a c h c o u n t o f c o n v ic tio n . A tt he end of

the s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . M endoza - B orunda r eques t ed an extensi on t o ap peal hi s case. T he d i stri ctcou rt , ho w ever, den i ed h i s r equ est beca us e the PSR ( err oneous l y ) s t at ed thathe had pl eade d gui l typur s uantt o a pl ea a g re e m e n t an d w a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l th e re in . W h ile th e p a rties fa iled to obj ectt o thi s err or , a r evi ew of the r ecor d m akes cl earthatM r . M endoza - B orunda p le a d e d g u ilty w ith o u t th e b e n e fit o f a p le a a g re e m e n t. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l fi l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a n d a m o t i o n t o w i th d r a w . We gr ant ed the mot i on. M r . M endoza - B orunda r et ai ned new couns el , w ho w as s ubs equent l yr emoved forfai l i ng t o fi l e a br i ef a nd an appe ndi x. M r . M endoza B o ru n d a ’s c u rr e n t a p p e lla te c o u n s e l w a s th e n a s s ig n e d to th e c a s e . II. O n ap peal, M r. M end oza-B orund a’s new l yapp oint ed ap pell at e cou nsel fi rs t- 6-

m ai nt ai ns thatw e s houl d decl i ne t o enfor ce M r . M endoza - B orunda’ s w ai verof a p p e llate rig h ts b e c a u se it w a s n o t m a d e k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily . T h is ar gum enti s unnece s s ary . B eca us e M r . M endoza - B orunda pl eade d gui l tyw i thout th e b e n e fit o f

a p le a a g re e m e n t, h e d id n o t w a iv e h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly, w e m a yc o n s id e r h is s u b s ta n tiv e c la im s . M r. M en d o za -B o run d a’s a p p ell ate c o u n sel n ex t argu es th e d istri ct co u rt e rr e d “ b yd e n y i n g M r . M e n d o z a - Bo ru n d a ‘ s a fe tyv a l v e ’ tr e a t me n t ” u n d e rUS S G § 5C 1. 2 and 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) . A pl t ’ s B r . at5. W e r evi ew forcl earerr orthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe defendantfai l ed t o m eethi s orherbur den t o es t abl i s h s afe ty - val ve el i gi bi l i ty . See U ni t ed St at es v. St ephens on, 452 F. 3d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H o w ev er, w e re v iew d e n o v o the d istri ct co u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f

e ith e r t h e s c o p e o r m e a n in g o f th e s a fe ty-v a lv e p ro v is io n s . Id . W e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydeni ed M r . M endoza - B orunda sa fe ty -v a lv e re lief. F irst, b e c a u se d e fe n se c o u n se l fa iled to p re se n t any evi dence th a tM r . M e n d o z a - Bo ru n d a ’ s 2 0 0 3 DW I c o n v i c t i o n wa s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yi n fi r m, the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n adopt i ng the PSR ’ s fi ndi ng that M r . M endoza - B orunda had tw o cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s . See U ni t ed St at es v. B us h, 405 F. 3d 909, 921 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( s t at i ng thatthe defendantbear s the bu rden t o “p rove bya prepo nd erance of the evidence that[a] conv i ct i on [w as] uncons t i tut i onal ” and c annots at i s fythi s bur den by“s i m pl ypoi nt [i ng] t o a s i l ent orambi guous r ecor d, butm us tcome for w ar d w i th aff i r m at i ve evi dence- 7-

es t abl i s hi ng thatthe pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of the C ons t i tut i on”) . Second, the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yconcl uded thati tcoul d not i gnor e one of

M r . M endoza - B orunda’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s i n or dert o m ake hi m el i gi bl e fors afe ty - val ve r el i ef. See U ni t ed St at es v. H ernandez - C as tr o, 473 F. 3d 1004, 1006 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( “[C]ourt s have no a uthor i tyt o adj us tcr i m i nal h ist o ryp o ints fo r th e p u rpo se o f g ran ti n g safetyv alve reli ef fro m a m an d atory m inim u m sen tenc e.”); U n it ed S tat es v . B reh m , 4 4 2 F . 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 0 (11 th C ir . 2006) ( “[T] he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ookerdi d notr endert he ca l cul at i on of el i gi bi l i tyr equi r ement s fors afe ty - val ve r el i ef a dvi s ory . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M cK oy , 452 F. 3d 234, 239- 40 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B arr er o, 4 2 5 F . 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 6 -58 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (sam e). T h u s, o n ce the d istri ct co u rt concl uded M r . M endoza - B orunda had tw o cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s , i thad no c h o ic e b u t to im p o s e th e s ta tu to ri ly re q u ir e d fiv e -ye a r s e n te n c e . I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, M r . M endoza - B orunda’ s appel l at e couns el as s er t s fort he fi r s tt i m e thatboth t he PSR ’ s m i s r epr es ent at i on r egar di ng the exi s t ence of a pl ea agr eementand the part i es ’ fai l ur e t o appr i s e the di s tr i ctcourtof thi s err orw arr ant de novo r e- s ent enci ng. T hi s i s s ue i s w ai ved as i tw as notr ai s ed i n the openi ng b ri e f. A n d e rs o n v . U .S . D e p ’t . o f L a b o r, 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 7 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). E ven i f w e w er e i ncl i ned t o i gnor e the w ai ver , M r . M endoza - B orunda ca nnotm eet the “de m andi ng s t andar d” of pl ai n err orr evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. B ruce, 458 F. 3d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).T he err oneous convi ct i on on C ountI I al s o r es ul t ed i n M r . M endoza 1 B o ru n d a im p ro p e rl yp a y in g a n a d d itio n a l o n e h u n d re d d o lla r s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t. T he di s tr i ctcourthas , how ever , al r eadyr emi t t ed thi s amount t o M r . M endoza B o ru n d a o n th e m o tio n o f th e g o v e rn m e n t.

- 8- Fi nal l y , w e not e thatthe di s tr i ctcour tent er ed a j udgm entof convi ct i on and concurr ents ent ence on C ountI I of the thr ee- counti ndi ctm ent , des pi t e the fa ct that M r. M end oza-B orund a w as onlycharged i n an d p l eaded gu i l tyt o C ou nts I and I I I . W hi l e the extr a convi ct i on and conc ur r ents ent ence di d notaffectthe l e n g th o f

M r . M e n d o z a - Bo ru n d a ’ s ma n d a t o rymi n i mu m fi v e - y e a rp r i s o n t e r m, theym us tbe vac at ed bec aus e of the pot ent i al foradver s e col l at er al co n seq u en ce s. R u tl ed g e v . U n it ed S tat es, 51 7 U . S . 2 9 2 , 3 0 1 -02 (19 9 6 ). 1 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM M r . M endoza - B orunda’ s fi ve- y ear s ent ence , V A C A T E the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence on C o u n t II, an d R E M A N D w ith in stru c tio n s to e n ter a n a m e n d e d ju d g m e n t. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge